Talk:List of vice presidents of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Foster not "acting"

There's no such thing as an "acting vice president", and the line that identifies Lafayette Foster as such should be removed. Foster was just President of the Senate -- which put him next in the line of Presidential succession with the Vice Presidency vacant, but certainly doesn't make him acting VP. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how how the wikitable syntax works. --Jfruh (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized with Palin entry

Someone placed Sarah Palin on the page as the VP elect as opposed to Joe Biden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.237.158 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably part of the same vandalization that listed Palin as VP-elect: the number of Republican VPs was erroneously raised to 21, and the number of Democrats lowered to 16. The current numbers (20 and 17, respectively) are correct; Biden is not yet counted, as he has yet to take office.

Hodsthorn (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed up dates

Thank goodness I checked up on this article. The dates were incorrect, they didn't correspond with the VP biographies on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I had to change March 3 to March 4, as well as Tyler, Fillmore, A.Johnson & Arthur's terms & the resulting vacancy dates. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

VP vs VP Elect vs. VP Presumptive

Yes, it is a nit-picky point... and the press gets this wrong all the time... but as an encyclopedia we should know better and use correct terms. The way the system in the US works... While Obama and Biden won on election night, they do not actually become President Elect and Vice President Elect until the Electorial College elects them and reports that election to Congress. That has not happened yet. At the moment, therefore, they are simply President and Vice President Presumptive. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In practical terms, and according to US Election Commission regulations, they are correctly referred to "President/Vice President-ELECT. There is not any legal distinction that is styled "presumptive" for someone who is already duly elected in which the election is not being contested. The FEC recognizes the winner of the popular electors of each state so certified (which they now are) as ELECT, not PRESUMPTIVE. I have changed it back to its proper legal style of title. 'President Presumptive" and "Vice-President Presumptive" titles simply do not exist in the United States and are not properly used in any context in which an election has already been held, and the opponents have conceded. That is when "ELECT" is used, and the holding of the formality of the Electoral College's tabulation of Electoral Votes reported by the States is irrelevant to the use of the "ELECT" designation. Themoodyblue (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... Do you have a citation for that? It goes counter to what I learned in school (which, I freely admit could be wrong or outdated... I would certainly bow to an authoritive source.) Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
We've gone through this over and over again. Look in the archives for the Obama page. The government defines the terms to include the "presumptive" situation. There is no issue with using the term "President-elect" and "Vice President-elect" here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle names

I undid the removal of all middle names of VPs. Some middle names were frequently used and well known to the public in the era of their incumbancy, like Richard Milhaus Nixon, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Charles Gates Dawes, and John Nance Garner. I would keep at least these. Edison (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is not whether people knew of their middle names, but whether they were used. I didn't change Garner at all. I concede that LBJ is reasonable, but the other two are better known as "Richard Nixon" and "Charles G. Dawes". Also, you reverted a completely unrelated edit for no reason. -Rrius (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting bug

The sorting of the dates in this list doesn't work correctly. /Slarre (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks very good. /Slarre (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One VP's famous evaluation of the value of the office

I added the famous and often Bowdlerized quote from John Nance Garner that the Vice Presidency "isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss." This was Texan Garner's advice to Texan Lyndon Johnson in 1960, when Johnson was considering leaving the Senate to become VP. The earlier Bowdlerized version substituted "spit" for "piss." The "piss" version gets hits at Google book search. Another version substitutes "pitcher" for "bucket" of piss[1]. Edison (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On hindsight, Garner's advice proved to be dead wrong, as the events at Dallas metamorphosed the pitcher of piss into a fountain of champagne for over five years.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Had LBJ followed Garner's advice and refused the VP, who would JFK have put on his ticket instead?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1965

I never realised that the office of the Vice-Presidency was vacant for over 13 months, and comprised the entire year of 1964. What would have happened if Lyndon B. Johnson had died during that time? Why did he have to wait until the 1964 election to name Hubert Humphrey?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The next person in line of succession would have been sworn in as President for the balance of the term. Per the 1945 succession law, that person would have been the Speaker of the House. From January 9, 1963 through January 3, 1971 the Speaker of the House was John W. McCormack, who who turned 73 in December of 1964, and who was 79 and seemingly quite frail when he left office. There was concern whether he was up to the job during the period he was next in line. If a person in the line of succession did not feel up to the demands of the job, or just did not want the job, he could refuse it and the next in line would become President. Edison (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
And that person would be? I forget who comes after the Speaker of the House.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with McCormack ducking the job is that it would have next gone to Senate President Pro Tem Carl Hayden, who was 86 years old and feeble in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated [2]. The rules were later changed so that a new VP could be installed. Edison (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realised how many old men there were in the presidental succession. It's no wonder Kennedy was acclaimed for his youth. In point of fact, he was the first US president born in the 20th century!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There's some confusion about the 1947 Presidential Succession Act. Does the next-in-line (in the event of a Vice Presiential vacancy) become President or merely assume the duties as Acting President & then resign his/her previous post. The confusion is due to the fact that the Presidential succession has never went beyond the Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Due to the old age of the House Speaker & Senate prez pro temp, the 25th amendment was passed in 1967. The 25th amendment, gives the Prez the right to nominate a new VP (who needs majority vote from House & Senate, to become VP). GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated table format

Explaining this change to the table. I'm trying to update the table to FL standards. It's the same format that the 19 FL governor lists use, including the recently promoted FL lists of Utah and Florida. No information was removed from the article.

The updated table addresses the following comments that were raised at the last non promoted FLC nomination.

  1. The VP table is consistent with the List of Presidents of the United States.
  2. Adding a second reference to each Vice President so that the date of the terms are specified.
  3. The entire row is no longer colored.

Bgwhite (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush born in Massachusetts, not Texas

This entry has what appears to be an error.

According to the Wikipedia entry on George H.W. Bush, he was born in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_h.w._bush

The List of Vice Presidents of the United States shows him being born in Texas. In fact, he didn't move there until after his stint in the armed forces and college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAKeith (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The list says no such thing. As is universal for lists of US presidents and vice presidents, the state listed is the state he was elected from unless otherwise noted. George H. W. Bush was elected from Texas, not Massachusetts, just as Joe Biden was elected from Delaware, not Pennsylvania. -Rrius (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
My confusion came from the sentence beforehand, which states, "The Vice-Presidents have originated from 21 states. More than half of them have come from just five states, New York (11), Indiana (5), Massachusetts (4), Kentucky (3), and Texas (3)."
I thought that "originated" meant "place of birth".
And, it may be universal ... except when the list is "Presidents by place of birth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_birth —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAKeith (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The word "originated" could be changed to "elected from", but your second point is bizarrely pointed given that I said "unless otherwise noted". A list of presidents by place of birth is clearly otherwise noted, so I really don't understand why you felt the need to take that tone. Finally, please sign your talk page contributions with four tildes (~~~~), and indent your responses to others contributions with colons (:). -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John Tyler's Bar

The Row where John Tyler is on is all of by one space. Is this supposed to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.171.44 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody messed with it. How does it look now? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, its good, thanks. 71.180.171.44 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Every Word Has To Start With A Capital Letter You Know

Just saying. Richard75 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel better now? -Rrius (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, yes! Richard75 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the table

I'm not certain how to add a column to the chart of veeps, but if someone wants to insert their places of interments here, I can provide that info. mets5orioles3@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.171.45 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Garner, Nixon, Agnew, Bush, Gore, Cheney & Biden

I'm FED UP with trying to figure out how to edits these tables. If possible, would somebody add to the sections of the re-elected Vice Presidents (Garner, Nixon, Agnew, Bush, Gore, Cheney & Biden), that they were Vice President at the time of their reelections? GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done the opposite. It makes no sense to split the terms and say the VP was VP when elected VP; the fact of re-election covers that, and adding it only risks creating confusion. -Rrius (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not certain who added it to the entries of Adams, Clinton, Tompkins, Calhoun & Marshall. However, a similiar thing has been done at List of Presidents of the United States - using President in the entries of reelected Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous office

A lot of these entries say "None" and then state an office -- is this intentional and if so what is it supposed to mean? Or a mistake? Richard75 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the heading, the column is supposed to be telling you what office the person held at the time of election. So when it says none, it is saying the person held no office at that time, but then notes the last office the person held (if any). I'm not sure that is a reasonable thing to do. It would make more sense to me to simply list all the offices a person held, regardless of when. What do you think? -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, or at least their most important offices anyway. Richard75 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
My only concern would be if there's alot of previous offices, which would clog up a Veeps section. John Tyler, Andrew Johnson & George HW. Bush, come to mind. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe just limit it to thei rbest two, e.g. for Tyker president pro tempore and Governor of Virginia. Richard75 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd accept deletion of the whole column, since those offices aren't required per qualifcations for the Vice Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would be that bad if we limit it to major offices. Tyler and Johnson, for instance, would be Senator, Representative and Governor. Bush would be Representative, DCI, and UN Ambassador (and possibly the China post). I don't think that is too unwieldy. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll make a start tonight or tomorrow unless someone else wants to do it. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, what's to be done with List of Presidents of the United States? It has President listed in previous office column of reelected Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The lists are formatted differently do I don't think it matters. On the other list they have listed each term of office distinctly, while the VP list is a list of individuals. Richard75 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the same ridiculousness was present here. I've fixed it. -Rrius (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Joe Biden

After 3hrs of trying to edit in Biden's reelction? I'm throwing in the towel. If anybody knows how to edit these tables? please add in the 2012 election. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous - VPs who later became Presidents

Under "Miscellaneous" in item 1 is states, None of the twenty-two who, later, became a president, began their presidency by election, and only Lyndon B. Johnson of them was later elected."

However, the list of "Vice presidents who becames presidents" contains only 14 entries and of them, the following are shown as having been elected as President:

John Adams Thomas Jefferson Martin Van Buren Richard Nixon (although not serving as VP at the time) George H. W. Bush

This is in conflict with the comment above that none of them began their presidency by election (and the total numbers don't tally).

I'm not American, and I don't have suitable references to determine which is right, but it seems to me that the comment under "Miscellaneous" is wrong.

PhilBrownOz (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)PhilBrownOz

Not a conflict, Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Nixon, H. W. Bush, were not of the twenty-two, they were younger than there presidents!--Maher27777 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
What the paragraph is trying to say is that 22 VPs were older than the presidents they served under. Out of those 22, a smaller number became president, none of them by election. I will see if I can re-word it to make it more clear. Richard75 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right Richard. But since VP is chosen by a presidential candidate, or by his counselor, I think it's not a coincidence that almost half of VPs were older than their presidents! Why George W. Bush chose the sick old Cheney to be VP? Why Obama chose Biden who may turn 74 in 2016? Why some presidents chose VPs over sixty years old?! Generally speaking, old VP has little chance to be president!
There have been 24 president/vice president pairs in which the V.P. was older. From the least age difference to the greatest, they are:
  1. Lincoln/Johnson -- 45 days
  2. Cleveland/Stevenson -- 1.40 years
  3. Taft/Sherman -- 1.89 years
  4. Garfield/Arthur -- 2.12 years
  5. Van Buren/Johnson -- 2.13 years
  6. Wilson/Marshall -- 2.79 years
  7. Hayes/Wheeler -- 3.26 years
  8. Polk/Dallas -- 3.31 years
  9. Jefferson/Clinton -- 3.72 years
  10. Ford/Rockefeller -- 5.02 years
  11. Bush/Cheney -- 5.43 years
  12. Truman/Barkley -- 6.45 years
  13. Roosevelt/Fairbanks -- 6.46 years
  14. Madison/Gerry -- 6.66 years
  15. Coolidge/Dawes -- 6.85 years
  16. Kennedy/Johnson -- 8.75 years
  17. Harrison/Morton -- 9.26 years
  18. Grant/Wilson -- 10.19 years
  19. Madison/Clinton -- 11.64 years
  20. Roosevelt/Garner -- 13.19 years
  21. Hoover/Curtis -- 14.54 years
  22. Cleveland/Hendricks -- 17.53 years
  23. Pierce/King -- 18.63 years
  24. Obama/Biden -- 18.71 years
HankW512 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Deaths in Office

I think it might be interesting to note in the article that November 22, 1963 was the first time in U.S. history that the total number of Presidents who died in office exceeded the total number of Vice Presidents who died in office, and that the last time a U.S. Vice President died in office was over a century ago (James S. Sherman on October 30, 1912). (On a similar note, the longest period without a U.S. President dying in office is April 30, 1789, the first day of the first presidency, to April 4, 1841, when William Henry Harrison died, but that record is due to be tied on October 26, 2015 and broken the following day.) HankW512 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added the first bit. Richard75 (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Federalist Color

As currently the standard on Wikipedia for the Color for the Federalist Party is Peach, (and it is my hope it will continue to be), I request that it be changed to Peach, Spartan7W. AvRand (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Color for the Federalist Party is still incorrect. I again request it be changed to the peach it is supposed to be AvRand (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Spartan7W, I Changed to more accurate painting of Thomas Jefferson as it was painted closer to his Vice Presidency, Changed Van Buren and Tylers Paintings to more detailed ones, Changed a Photo of Fillmore that had bad lighting, Changed pic of Hobart so that it actually faces forwards, same with James Sherman, Changed to less dark and easier photo of Garner, switched photo of LBJ to more accurate one for time period, Switched to higher quality photo of Humphrey. Also we still need to switch the black to peach for consistency. AvRand (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Avrand6: The portrait I had of Jefferson was from his Vice Presidency (1800), yours is from 6 years before it started. Van Buren's was from his Vice Presidential era (he hadn't aged nearly as much), yours is from 11 years after leaving office as VP. The one of LBJ was from his Senate Majority Leader days, compare to yours (1950), and the one of Humphrey is not portrait quality, one I had of him is the official White House photograph.

Can someone semi-protect this page please?

An anonymous IP keeps messing with it. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Refined table format

I’m in the process of preparing updates for the VPOTUS table so that it is consistent with the List of Presidents of the United States table. Several formatting changes have been made to that table in recent months by consensus and through conversations which can be viewed on that article’s talk page. I'm seeking input from watchers of this page before I post; please, take a look and post comments here. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good! I especially like the way the vacancies are displayed, though I would make a few tweaks:
  • (Balance of unexpired term) should be (balance of unexpected term)
  • (When successor sworn–in) should be (until successor sworn in)
  • It might be nice to use a contrasting background color (gray?) for the vacancy lines
  • I'd prefer to eliminate the (continuation)s in the "Election" columns. I see two ways to do this:
    1. Break the vacancy line into two boxes, colspan=6 before the "Election" column and colspan=1 after; or
    2. Swap the "Election" and "Previous service" columns. In this case, the corresponding swap should also be done in the list of Presidents.
I may see some other things later, but this looks great! Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
ThanksYBG; I'll be tinkering with the design a bit over the next few days.
Anyone else have any observations or suggestions? Drdpw (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Update before I edit the page (in a day or two)
  • Shortened "office vacant" to read simply Office vacant M/D/Y to M/D/Y as the duration and reason for the vacancy are clearly indicated by notes.
  • Shaded the vacancy rows.
  • Eliminated the "(continuation)s" in the vacancy lines' "Election" columns. Ended up simply leaving the cells blank, as I ran into formatting difficulties when attempting to break the vacancy line into two boxes and when attempting to swap the "Election" and "Previous service" columns. What happened was that the "Election" columns slipped out of proper alignment every time (just as it is in the article currently for the elections of 1808 and 1972). Blank lines should be alright here as the election number sequence is unbroken and clearly visible.
Again, any observations or suggestions are welcome. Drdpw (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Drdpw: Very good, so far. If you need a hand with the reformatting, I wouldn't hesitate.--Neve–selbert 10:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple notes about the reformatted table I’ve just now posted:

  • As is now the case with the presidents list, the "state" column is removed from the VP list, as is the "party color" column for presidents (individual notes now denote where the party of the POTUS & VPOTUS differed); additionally, the "party color" column for vice presidents is moved (as are a few headings).
  • In the "party color" column for vice presidents I chose to use the current Democratic Party meta color ( ) rather than the color currently used in the "party color" column for presidents on the presidents list page ( ). I did so because   is the status quo meta color. There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color#Rfc: #3333FF or #34AAE0 on which color should be used as the meta color for the U.S. Democratic Party. Please join that discussion if you wish to express your view on this topic.

Thanks YBG and Neve-selbert for your input. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've boldly moved some columns around - the # column rightward and the previous-service column leftward. I'm not sure about the end result, I'll leave that to others to decide whether it is an improvement or not. And it may be that only one of the changes should have been made. Anyway, let's discuss it. Feel free to revert if you wish. YBG (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
YBG, I like what you did to the table! The previous service column fits (IMO) very well where you've placed it. The number column goes well in its new location too. Thanks for your input. Drdpw (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NS changes

@YBG and Drdpw: This revision could be reviewed. Note: I made the changes in good faith and I apologise for any disruption.--Nevé–selbert 23:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the needed corrections you made, and even the dates of service you added, were made together with numerous unnecessary formatting changes (such as moving notations and adding line breaks), and with changes of things specifically discussed here on the talk page, like the Democratic Party shading and the shading of vacancies in the vice-presidency. Sorry for throwing the baby out w/the bath water (so to speak), and I do know that the changes you made were made in good faith. Drdpw (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's my attenpt to catalog all of the changes and my opinion:

Group Change YBG
General 1.1 Add/remove spaces which make no difference in display YBG:Why?
General 1.2 Add "plainrowheaders" to "class=wikitable" YBG:Why?
Legend 2.1 Change markup from multi-line to single line YBG:No
Legend 2.2 Change Dem color from WP meta color to hard-coded color YBG:No
Legend 2.3 Potentially other changes I haven't figured out YBG:?
VPs cols 3.1 Eliminate full birthdate of living VPs YBG:OK
Prev svc 4.1 Line break between ordinal and office YBG:OK
Prev svc 4.2 Include ordinal inside link to previous office YBG:No
Prev svc 4.3 Add line break and date range YBG:OK
Prev svc 4.4 King: Change from AL senator to PA YBG:?
Prev svc 4.5 Colfax: Change from 8th to 9th cong dist YBG:?
VPcy cols 5.1 Add scope=row (might add bold & bg color) YBG:No
VPcy cols 5.2 Use "!" not "|" (might add bold & bg color) YBG:No
VPcy cols 5.3 Add <center> YBG:No
VPcy cols 5.4 Line break between date and footnote marker YBG:OK
Party cols 6.1 Change Dem meta color to hard coded color YBG:No
Party cols 6.2 Add line break between party and footnote marker YBG:OK
POTUS 7.1 Add line break between President and footnote marker YBG:OK
Vac rows 8.1 Move footnote marker from after date to before date YBG:?
Vac rows 8.2 add <center> YBG:No
Vac rows 8.3 Use scope=row (might add bold & bg color) YBG:No
Vac rows 8.4 Use "!" not "|" (might add bold & bg color) YBG:OK
Vac rows 8.5 Change "–" to "&ndash;" YBG:Why?

I have purposely added my opinion as briefly as possible in the above table. If you want me to expand, please ask and I'll explain below. Please add your own opinions VERY BRIEFLY in the above table. If you need to say anything more than a few characters, please summarize above as I have done, and add additional details here, referencing the number. Thanks! YBG (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the corrections you made, to William King's state and to the congressional district Schuyler Colfax represented, and the birth dating, year only and age, of living presidents. Let's leave the Democratic Party "meta color" in use while the discussion regarding what color should be used on Wikipedia for the Democratic Party is ongoing. Also, the shading for the vacancy rows is intentional to set them apart. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Incoming VP

There is a discussion going on at List of Presidents of the United States § Vice President about how to incorporate the VP-elect into this table. The discussion is over there so that the POTUS-elect there and VP-elect here will be treated the same way. YBG (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Vacancy lines

In the latest version, I have expanded the wording of the vacancy lines so that the extended footnotes are no longer needed. The wording includes wikilinks for further information, which are repeated in every case so that the reader can navigate the wikilink from any line. The MOS allows such repeat .ed wikilinks within tables. Feel free to discuss further improvements here, or if anyone thinks I've been too bold, feel free to follow WP:BRD and revert before the discussion. YBG (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

States--a new column

I think this list would be enhanced by adding the state that each VP hailed from at the time of election. Unschool 05:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For the Presidents, there was a "State" column in the List of Presidents of the United States, but it was changed back and forth for Presidents who were associated with more than one state. Consequently, information about Presidents by state is listed in List of Presidents of the United States by home state. That list, as I understand it, includes not only the Presidents' state of birth but also the state from which they were elected. I agree that this information for the VPs would also be interesting, but for the same reasons, I think it would be best to not include it in this table, but in a separate article. I do not believe that such a list article exists. I would fully support its creation. Thank you for your desire to help improve this online encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Was this ever made? It would be good as it did. Since both P and VP are Constitutionally required to have A state they are from, seems like info that should be easy to find. Thmazing (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

VP King inauguration

William R. King was not inaugurated on March 4, 1853 with President Pierce, but 20 days later on March 24, 1853. Should the table reflect this by changing the date and adding a vacancy line (or lengthening the previous one)? YBG (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: He wasn't sworn in until March 24, but he still officially became VP on March 4. A note should be included, however. MB298 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@MB298: There is already a note to that effect in the dates column. Is there a reason why this situation is different from the situation of John Adams, the first Vice President? I don't hold a strong view one way or the other. YBG (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
MB298 is spot on regarding the dating of King's term. Regarding the J.A. start date, using 4-21 rather then 3-4 follows the convention of using 4-30 rather then 3-4 for Washington. They were the first, and while their offices came into force and their terms did in fact begin on 3-4-89, most lists I've seen over the years use the inauguration date for them instead. Bear in mind also that the election results were not known to Adams or Washington until mid-April. Drdpw (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The case of Prez Washington & Vice Prez Adams terms beginning after March 4, 1789 was due to that the Federal Government wasn't fully assembled yet. After that, the presidential & vice presidential terms always ended/began on March 4 of the year after the election, up until 1937. Therefore, we should indeed have Vice Prez King's term beginning on March 4, 1853. BTW, many Presidents & Vice Presidents took their oath of office on dates other then when they actually took office. Examples: Some of the Presidents who succeeded to office & some of the Presidents who refuse to take their oaths on Sunday. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@MB298 and Drdpw: Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated! YBG (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
King should only be counted from when he took the oath of office. A citizen does not become VPOTUS (or POTUS) until they have been inaugurated. King was vice-president elect for twenty days longer than normal but not vice-president until March 24, 1853. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no; King became Vice President on March 4, 1853, and by Act of Congress he was permitted to take his oath of office later. A citizen becomes Vice President or President when the Constitution says they do, which since 1937 is January 20 (was March 4 before then). What a citizen cannot do however, is enter the Execution of his Office until they take the oath. Drdpw (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RE:Start of terms for Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, and Coolidge

There is a discussion currently underway at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States (HERE) regarding what start date should be used for the presidency of John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge ... the date their predecessor died OR the date each was sworn into office. All contributors/watchers to/of this page are invited to participate in that discussion, as the consensus reached there would, out of necessity (for consistency), impact the dates used in this article's table. Your participation will help broaden the eventual consensus. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Fillmore, Arthur and Coolidge were all sworn in on the same day as their predecessors died. the last famously in the middle of the night by his father.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Please read: Inauguration of Millard Fillmore, Inauguration of Chester A. Arthur, and First inauguration of Calvin Coolidge. Taylor died on July 9 and Fillmore was inaugurated on July 10. Garfield died on September 19 and Arthur was inaugurated on September 20. Harding died on August 2 and Coolidge was inaugurated on August 3. They may have taken place less than twenty-four hours apart but they were not on the same calendar date. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Many times, incoming US Presidents have taken their oath not exactly at the moment their term began (usually a few minutes after). Do we say the presidency was vacant at those times, every 4 years? GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Confederate Secretary of War John C. Breckenridge

I tried to mention this, and there seems to be no consensus on the subject, just some guy who says "WE DON'T DO THIS!!!" Why? he was a cabinet secretary in a de facto country that had diplomatic relations with many countries and controlled a large amount of territory. Isn't this worth a mention at least? If a future president or vice president becomes Secretary General of the UN, would that be excluded too? John Tyler was in the Confederate Provisional Congress and was elected to the first subsequent service one. Why shouldn't THAT be mentioned? Should we tell the WHOLE story? Arglebargle79 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite appropriate to list these men's positions in the CSA. It is certainly as significant as the equivalent positions in the Union government. I say include it. However, if there has been a discussion in the past that lead to a consensus otherwise, I'd certainly want to have a look at that. YBG (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Arglebargle79, If you're going to quote me please do so accurately. What I wrote in my edit summary was, Only those serving in high U.S. state or federal government positions after leaving the vice presidency are included. The parameters for inclusion are spelled out in the introductory sentences before the table, and the services Tyler and Breckenridge rendered to the CSA government fall outside of those parameters. Be that as it may, thanks for not just reverting my revert and for initiating this discussion, as it's an important issue to hash out and reach consensus on. cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So let's have a vote, shall we?

  • I vote yea, let's mention CSA offices. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI, decisions are made by consensus (WP:CONS), and consensus (the status-quo) is not changed by majority vote or percentage of support to do so. Drdpw (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include CSA although (contrary to my above note) I'm not sure whether the standard for inclusion should be higher or lower than the standard used for Federal or State offices. YBG (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    I support the idea of separating this from the general list. As it would be a fairly sort list, it could either be a very small table or a brief paragraph. That is to say, if these offices were already included the main table, I would support an editorial Ordinance of Secession. YBG (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, but separately As the subject of this list article is persons who have served as VPOTUS it is fitting and appropriate that there be a list of subsequent service by these individuals to that same government, and, given the constitutional relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government, to list their subsequent service in state government as well. Service to the CSA is different however; it was de facto a foreign government, and by serving that government Tyler & Breckenridge were repudiating the U.S. government. This being the case, their service to the Confederacy is not like the others and should not be listed with the others. Nevertheless, I've no problem with including the two in a separate table detailing Subsequent service to foreign governments (or something like that). Drdpw (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude The Confederation was a different country than the Union, which is what this article is about. I see no compelling argument why this article should include subsequent public service to any foreign nation. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - as this article is based on individuals. Besides, it would be quite interesting to our readers, if they knew that two former US Vice Presidents latter betrayed their country (USA). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a very convincing argument for inclusion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"The parameters for inclusion are spelled out in the introductory sentences before the table, and the services" If I add a mention to the introductory sentence would anyone object to adding confederate service? It's important to understanding these people's later careers. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, others have already objected to doing that. I have just now made an edit to the page which may be a good compromise way forward: noting the service of Tyler and Breckinridge to the CSA in a sentence after the table of service by former VPs to the USA. Thoughts anyone? Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Could we have the same thing done for John Tyler at the List of Presidents of the United States article? GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Abolutely! Look, the thing is, is thT the list of "what they did afterwards" is about the individuals. The Civil War, is and will be forever (hopefully), a unique situation in American history. No former Vice president in over a century and a half has been in a foreign/rebel government. and @GoodDay, yes, we should mention Tyler's Confederate Congressional service in the President's list. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done · GoodDay, Earlier today I inserted a note in the post-presidency section of the POTUS-list page about Tyler's service to the CSA. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What's in a name.

I've no source for this & it's likely not significant enough to add to this article or the Vice President of the United States article. Anyways, Mike Pence will be the fifth consecutive US Vice President who doesn't go by his full first name. Examples: Dan, Al, Dick, Joe & Mike instead of James, Albert, Richard, Joseph & Michael. Perhaps best put in a related trivia article. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yah, that's a pretty insignificant factoid, not to mention original research. Drdpw (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(First elected office)

The tag (First elected office) shouldn't be in the Vice Presidency column. Best put in the Prior position column. See List of Presidents of the United States discussion on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of Vice Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

notes

for some reason there are notes attesting to the fact that tyler was kicked out of the whig party while president and that johnson switched back to the democratic party at the end of his presidency how is that germane to their vice presidencies? that washington had no party how is that germane to the vice presidency?עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Tyler & Johnson notes are there because, in the past, the labeling of their party affiliaion in the table (as both VPOTUS & POTUS) kept changed every now and again (kind-of like pictures seem to be doing these days). The Washington note—like the note beside presidents J. Adams, Jackson, & Lincoln—is there to show that this president did not share his VPs political afiliation. You see, at one time, there were 2 party affiliation columns—one for VPOTUS & one for POTUS—here and on the list of presidents page. So, when the POTUS-party column was deleted from both tables, the notes were inserted. These later notes still serve a useful purpose, I believe, and are germane to a list of vice presidents that includes party affiliation & the presidents they served under. I can't say the same for the Tyler & Johnson notes, however, especially located where they are – the column listing Tyler's & Johnson's party affiliation while VPOTUS. Drdpw (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
ok ill go with the washington and adams note but the tyler and johnson notes should be removed עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, Tyler was a Whig during his 1-month as veep & A. Johnson was a Democrat (dressed as a National Unionist) during his 1.5 months as veep. The National Unionists were 'really' Republicans & (North supporting) Democrats. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

– I created a requested move as requested by GoodDay. 2601:183:101:58D0:508F:A515:F7C4:41D6 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also List of United States Secretaries of State and other lists of cabinet officials. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed - what's next... de-capitalizing the word "Emperor" in List of Holy Roman Emperors? The titles "President of the United States" and "Vice President of the Untied States" are routinely capitalized in sources. It is time to stop this de-capitalization crusade. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2018
    You mean like in these books? [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]? Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Blueboar:, could we have your response to the evidence set out by Dicklyon, please? Tony (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed, unless every "List of Presidents of ..." and "List of Prime Ministers of ..." article Wikipedia-wide is changed as well. Drdpw (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, of course, every one will be fixed if this good start is approved. I suggest you support with the understanding that not everything gets fixed at once. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed. There's a lot of WP:Gaming the system going on, where one blob of over-capitalizers cries out in anguish if things aren't discussed one article at a time, and the other gaggle of people from the same camp shake their fists and stamp their feet if its not one huge mass RM. Can't have it both ways. The usual, and sensible, RM approach is is to do batch RMs of similar article titles about similar topics. It's been my direct experience that attempts to do an enormous mass-RM of every article that might qualify for a move will inevitably net one that should not for some specific-to-that-article reason, and lead people to oppose the entire proposal on the basis of the single article that shouldn't move. So, no, it can't be done in one enormous dump-truck move as Drdpw suggests.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title "President of the United States" is routinely capitalized in almost every major source.Canuck89 (Converse with me) 01:46, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
    It is also routinely capped in Wikipedia where appropriate; but look at the appropriate context please. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. MOS:JOBTITLES already covers this in detail. We capitalize when the subject itself is unique title. Thus we have an article at Vice President of the United States. But List of vice presidents of the United States isn't such a case; it a common-noun-phrase usage and the subject is the individuals, not the title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. "Offices, titles, and positions such as president...are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case," per WP:JOBTITLES. From Chicago Manual of Style: "the president; George Washington, first president of the United States; President Washington; the presidency" (8.21). "Lowercase titles except when they directly precede names," according to "titles" in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the upper-case descriptor of the topic is most recognizable. The lower-casing of important topics and historical events on Wikipedia certainly must end somewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    MOS:CAPS says it ends with topics that are "consistently capitalized in sources". Why not stick with that? Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per MOS:JOBTITLES. The capitalisation of common nouns is completely unnecessary and contrary to the normal rules of English capitalisation. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Given that the titles “President of the United States” and “Vice President of the United States” are routinely capitalized in an overwhelming majority of sources, I have to question the claim that this is “contrary to the normal rules”. Perhaps they are undocumented exceptions to the rules... but it seems that it is “normal” to capitalize. Call them “uncommon nouns”, if you need a term for it... but we should keep the routine (ie “normal”) capitalization. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    In the singular the terms are titles, treated as proper nouns and capitalised, but in the plural they are no longer titles, thus not capitalised. MOS:JOBTITLES actually uses "president(s) of the United States" as an example. Opposers of these particular article moves should consider proposing a change to MOS:JOBTITLES, or at least a change to the example used in that guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    So would you lowercase the word “Emperors” in List of Holy Roman Emperors? ... that is plural too. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. See my information below. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    This ngram suggests that book publishers can do it either way. Is there an actual argument for capitalizing? The president is just that important that he needs a capital "P"? Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    List of Holy Roman Emperors is probably not a good example, because it is a redirect to Holy Roman Emperor. The target article title is singular, a formal title for a specific entity, and thus worthy of capitalisation. I'd say that the redirect itself complies with WP:R#KEEP's "aid accidental linking" so should remain. I would change Category:Holy Roman Emperors and {{Holy Roman Emperors}} for the same reasons as "presidents" - the plural is not a formal title for a specific entity. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yep. This is exactly what MOS:JOBTITLES intends. The article Holy Roman Emperor would remain at that title because the position itself is the subject; it is not being used as a generic, plural/collective descriptor of a series of individuals. It's very strange to me that people are [supposedly] having any difficulty understanding this distinction. And we've been over it so many times before with way less hand-wringing, e.g. this very year with a bunch of moves distinguishing articles like "Lord Mayor of [Placename]" and "List of lord mayors of [Placename]". A stare-you-in-the-face example is List of mayors, lord mayors and administrators of Sydney, in which one of the full formal titles as a thing unto itself is given, properly, as "Right Honorourable Lord Mayor of Sydney", the same style that would also be used before the name of a specific person. Similarly, a section there is "List of deputy lord mayors of Sydney", a collective, generic label for multiple people, while a sentence within it begins: "The following individuals have been elected as Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney", in which the position is being referred to as such, as a unique role in itself, not being used as a descriptive label.

    This is not difficult. It's the same as: "According to Professor X. Y. Zeeling, twenty other professors of basketweaving have signed the petition to have the university create a new Distinguished Professor of Basketweaving position." The fact that a handful of people are [supposedly] having their brains short out just because [vice] presidents of the US are under discussion this time isn't really plausible to me. Rather, it's strongly evidentiary that the only thing happening here is dogged American-exceptionalist conservative traditionalism fighting tooth and nail, as usual (see many previous debates, e.g. about MOS:JR) against a much broader consensus (both on-WP and in off-site style guides, most of which recommend lower-casing rules consistent with our own today). There's neither a policy basis nor a linguistic reality behind the opposition to this move, only a big pile of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose for same reasons as Blueboar and Drdpw. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed Words like President of the United States are titles of offices, and therefore should be capitalized. AvRand (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Neither of them gave a reason to not fix these. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support IAW the pertinent MOS, as well as precedent (probably brought about by said MOS, e.g. list of chief executive officers). — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Your parenthetically noted article does not represent precedent; these do however: List of Prime Ministers of Canada, List of Presidents of France, and List of Emperors of Japan. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I wasn't at home, and I just searched for the first title that sprang to mind. I've struck my second argument. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:CAPS. There is no reason to capitalize "president" and it is important to follow our internal guidelines and regulations. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    Then a systemic change needs to be made that encompasses all "List of Presidents of ...", "List of Prime Ministers of ...", "List of Emperors of ...", along with similarly titled & capitalized articles, as precedent appears to go in a different direction. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    I wonder whether those article precede the MOS or vice-versa. If the MOS was decided first, then those pages have been titled systematically incorrectly. If those pages were the SOP first, but then MOS:JOBTITLES was decided upon, then the latter constitutes the systematic change that you requested. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should go by what our sources state, and most .gov sites (Library of Congress, usa.gov, etc) show these positions capitalized. The word presidency shouldn't be capitalized, but when it's used as a title it should be capitalized. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Compared to other "de-capitalization crusade" efforts, this one has a much better rationale. Why stand in the way of progress, i.e. making english look exactly like one of those other interchangeable european languages? —  AjaxSmack  20:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    The editors of the top dictionaries and style guides set the rules for English language usage. We either follow those rules, or violate them. Interchangeability of European languages? What are you taking and where can I get some? Nine Zulu queens (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - AFAIK, more often then not, these offices are usually shown in capitalized form. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is precisely why MOS:JOBTITLES says what it says. This is a common-noun-phrase usage. It is not the article about the title as such (Vice President of the United States), nor is it use of the phrase as a title attached directly to someone's name (Vice President Pence). Frankly, it's amazing that so many people STILL don't get it, after the number of times we've been over this, and re-re-re-clarified that part of MoS to be abosolutely clear. It really isn't possible any longer to misread it, this is just willful defiance of it out of traditionalism. Stop it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – higher office should not cause exceptions to otherwise consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support—I want all opposers to state explicitly how far down the hierarchical pecking order they'd draw the capping line. "White House Cleaner"? Seriously: bring it on—where is the boundary? The engram survery above says it all, too. Where sources are a mix, we go with MOSCAPS. Tony (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Canuck and Dpwd. –Davey2010Talk 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Usage in reliable sources is the highest and most important guideline, and a simple check confirms it is capitalized in the vast majority of them. If sources used pR3$ideNt of the United States, Wikipedia would as well. SnowFire (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    The sources for this article are authorities on vice presidents. To resolve a style question, we should turn to an authority on style such as a dictionary or style guide. Otherwise, the existence of guidelines such as WP:JOBTITLES wouldn't make much sense. Just out of curiosity, I decided take the challenge suggested above. This is from the first source I checked: "As vice president, Gerry supported the War of 1812 and was a defender of President Madison and his administration."[15] Nine Zulu queens (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    That really says a lot for outside sources, when they're inconsistent within one sentence. And I'm seeing a lot of claptrap above about outside style guides. We have our own style guide. Tony (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, yeah... “we have our own style guide”... Which can be changed, or simply ignored if we wish. Our “rules” are supposed to be flexible.
    Indeed, a move request like this one is one of the ways we can determine what consensus actually is, and whether we need to change our style guidance. If the guidance says “de-capitalize”, but the RM says “No, leave it capitalized”, we know that community consensus does not support the guidance... and we should amend the guideline to match the RM consensus. Blueboar (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    ...outside sources, when they're inconsistent within one sentence. — On the contrary that source is consistent in that it capitalises "President" when followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when it can be considered to have become part of the name, and does not capitalise "vice president" when used generically (not immediately preceding and deemed part of someone's name) - exactly as MOS:JOBTITLE suggests. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Congrats to whoever rewrote the guideline. I was reluctant to cite it because the old version was more confusing than useful. But I don't think any version of the guideline could reasonably be interpreted to support the upper casing of plurals. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    That credit goes, at least primarily, to SMcCandlish. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support English grammar is English grammar. You can't go by government pamphlets, websites, advertising materials from corporations, etc. They are going to capitalize what they think is important, but that's just 'advertising hype' and 'marketing creep.' One of the rules of good grammar regards job titles, which, as common nouns, are NEVER capitalized unless used as an honorific. Any job title, when plural, can almost never be an honorific, and therefore can never be capitalized. There really are rules about this, only a few centuries or so old. We are so inundated with advertisers and marketers taking bold license with the English language to get their points across as quickly as possible that, unless you paid attention in school, you'd probably know all this already. See CMOS and other writing industry accepted style guides that are available for clarity on this, if needed. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Plurals and generic references are not titles or proper names. Note: some of the confusion here comes from the fact that WP MOS for capitalization in article titles differs from the standards used by newspapers and other periodicals. WCCasey (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. These are generic common noun uses, not a proper noun usage. This is well covered by MOS:JOBTITLES, especially since its clarification in recent months. See the most recent move discussions at Talk:List of mayors of Birmingham, Talk:List of mayors of Finsbury, Talk:List of mayors of Leeds, Talk:List of provosts of Aberdeen, Talk:List of prime ministers of Queen Elizabeth II, and Talk:Living presidents and vice presidents of the United States (not to mention Talk:Mayor of Doncaster and Talk:Mayor of Copeland). Note that most of those discussions covered multiple articles. Some (all?) of the mentioned counterexamples have never been explicitly discussed in RM discussions, and thus form no precedent as consensus. I'm a bit less sure about the ones with the singular form ("List of XYZs by the President [singular, not plural] of the United States"), but SMcCandlish has spoken. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – If these move requests are sustained, I request that implementation be stayed until a Wikipedia-wide consensus for capitalization of plural titles in list articles is established based upon what's been discussed here (and noted in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)). How active is WikiProject Lists? This issue would seem to fall in their bailiwick. The alternative is, I fear, a contentious series of country-by-country move request debates until some/most/all List of Emperors of ..., List of Presidents of ..., List of Chancellors of ..., List of Prime Ministers of ..., List of Governors-General of ..., and List of Dukes of ... (among others, I'm sure) are changed to sentence case. Drdpw (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Nah, those should already be lowercase, and most of them already are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Not so; most are capitalized, just as I noted above. At any rate, as up-page you've dismissed my above suggestion out of hand (and are you suggesting that I'm "gaming the system"?), I'll bow out of the conversation. Regrettably, it appears that BarrelProof's last sentence above my comment is the final word. Drdpw (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    I haven't said anyone in particular is gaming the system. I'm responding to several years of the same tired, subjective, plaintive recalcitrance being offered against such moves, no matter how many times this over-capitalization positioning fails in RM after RM after RM. At some point the stick has to be dropped – by everyone wielding it. It's not personal; it's a matter of the same general cluster of editors pursuing the same aim relentlessly against a consensus codified in multile (NC and MoS) guidelines, and reaffirmed over and over again in RM. It's just general tendentiousness. Whether its organized or intentional or not is ultimately irreelvant; it's still a waste of editorial time. As for stats, we must be looking at different articles. In the end, it doesn't matter. We just recently went over this yet again with the mayor and lord mayor articles and the consensus was "List of [lord] mayors of ..." versus "[Lord] Mayor of". It's exactly the same distinction as the one here: generic description of various people versus article about the position itself. This is not new; it's tired rehash.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary and redundant. Bold and Brash (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • What a ludicrous comment. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - President of the United States is a title and it should always be capitalized. Qballer82 Qballer82 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    Capitalizing titles is contrary to Wikipedia style, and contrary to half the sources. Did you look at WP:JOBTITLES? Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro

The article's intro should be modeled after the List of Presidents of the United States intro, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Prior office

I've removed the column from this article, as it's been removed from List of presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Lifespan

With the recent restructuring of the president's list the lifespan was removed but still remains on this list. It should probably be removed here too, for consistency. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done · I also brought other formatting aspects of this list into sync with the POTUS list as well. Drdpw (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

{{subst:trim|1=


Connection licence

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Subsequent offices

Jeez, I'm just not having a wonderful time today, at all. Why are we listing Biden as the fifteen vice president to later become president? The guy hasn't become president yet. Wait until January 20, 2021. What the 'bleep' is the rush? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Richard M. Johnson image

IMHO a painting of Johnson, puts the image out of sync with the preceding & succeeding photos. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1136956360"